Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Distributed element filter/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010.

Distributed element filter

 * Nominator(s):  Sp in ni ng  Spark  08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has now been through GA, Peer review and an informal review on its talk page. It is now a complete article with wide coverage of its subject. This is a technology article, an area in which FAC is sadly deficient. It is an overview of a wide subject and in writing it I have endeavoured to produce something that is readable. I have avoided long tracts of math markup analysis which are found in so many articles on electronic circuits (this can always be included in articles on individual circuits), using math markup only once to define an important parameter mentioned repeatedly in the text.

I am aware of the one link in the article to a disambiguation page. The page in question was recently converted to a dab page, but it is my intention to revert it (that is, there is nothing that needs doing to this article). I have not done so so far because I was waiting for the editor responsible to reply to my message, but I will fix it soon if no objection is forthcoming.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This FAC was not transcluded until 13:03, May 6, 2010; the nominator should have resigned with the correct date at that point. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Restart, original nom. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Either all images should have figure numbers or none, mixing format looks really bad Fasach Nua (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All figures renumbered.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  14:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, original had 7 supports and one oppose who had issues with the difficulty of the article, seems like a consensus IMO. Sandman888 (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues: Several of the works in the bibliography are not cited in the article, specifically the two Barrett et al articles, Kinayman et al, Mason & Sykes, and Young. These should be separately listed as "Further reading". Also, the G.L. Ragan book, which is cited, is not in the bibliography. Otherwise, all sourcing and referencing looks OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Converted Ragan to short form inline, removed Kinayman (can't remember what it was referencing, probably replaced with something better). The papers by Barrett, Mason & Sykes and Young are all specifically mentioned in the text and hence are properly in the Bibliography.  I can't see that it is helpful to add short form inline cites which contain no more information than has already been read in the article, positively annoying for any reader that follows the link.
 * The Barrett articles I was referring to are: Barrett, R. M. and Barnes, M. H. "Microwave printed circuits", Radio Telev., vol.46, p. 16, September 1951; and Barrett, R. M. "Etched sheets serve as microwave components", Electronics, vol.25, pp. 114–118, June 1952. Can you indicate where these are mentioned in the text? Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The inventor of printed stripline, however, is known; this was Robert M. Barrett who published the idea in 1951.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above should be cited (how otherwise does the reader know where to look for the source of this statement?). Is there something similar for the second (1952) Barrett article? Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll put the cites in, but I still don't think it is particularly helpful. The reader knows from the text that they should be looking for an article by Barrett from 1951.  Clicking on the ref link will unhelpfully tell them "Barrett, 1951", so they still have to go to the bibliography to get the full cite - three steps instead of two.  The 1952 article by Barrett is a piece in a popular magazine covering the same invention as his original paper, so the two can be cited together.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All sources issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I've started a line-by-line prose review here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I have a non-prose concern: The article's lead discusses the applications of DEFs, but there is no section in the body called Applications. I would also imagine that a section labeled Construction or Manufacturing would also be useful, or was this article intended to be solely a theoretical discussion of the subject? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An "Applications" section would be a mistake since it would give the impression that there are specific functional applications for DE filters which other designs do not cover. As it says in the lede, distributed element filters are used in the same applications as lumped element filters.  An applications section would merely be listing the applications of frequency filters in general, which would be wandering outside the scope of the article.  Specific applications are mentioned in the lede as a result of the previous FAC where reviewers felt that specific examples were needed to give the reader a handle on the concept.  Applications are covered in the "history" section in an historical context and a detailed description of the specific circuit in the lede picture is given in the info box below it.  "Construction and manufacturing" as a general topic belongs in an article describing DE circuits in general, the scope of this article is limited to filters.  Nevertheless, all major construction technologies are at least mentioned with a heavy bias towards the much used planar technologies.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch. I supported the previous version of the FAC, so I am reiterating my support here (not sure if that is what I am supposed to do or not). I think it looks a little odd to have the figures themsevles labeled "Fig. 1" etc. (or whatever number, note that Fig. is capitalized), but then the text uses "figure 1" (not capitalized unless Figure starts a sentence). I like the other changes since I last read it and think it has become more accessible (but at this point I have read it several times, so my critical distance is mostly gone). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fig." replaced with "Figure". Not sure what you are driving at about capitalisation, normal sentence case is being used throughout.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  11:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and thanks for pointing out sentence case - I was tired before and just missed it. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: Having taken a read through I can say although the topic matter perplexed me I was still able to get a fair amount of information and general concepts about this "filter". Though I have to say some of the subject matter probably will not be understandable to anyone who does not have some familiarity with electrical circuits, which is the case with me. Good read, looks well researched. Wish you luck with the FAC! --Kuzwa (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.